Vichy France officially surrendered to Nazi occupation and continued to fight a strong civilian resistance. — Isaac

AND THAT PROVES MY POINT. Thank you. :cheer:

The Vichy government a) sent Jews to extermination camps, b) fought against the resistance and the Free French, c) fought against that allies too in Northern Africa. Hence had there been a "Vichy Government" for the UK, similar things would have happened. Hence your idea of the UK surrendering to the Nazis may have saved lives is delirious.

I'm not sure if literally on day 2 people were talking that. You have to give a reference to that. — ssu

The mechanism changes, but the prediction of "collapse" was literally on day two of the invasion.

Analysis: Russia's economic defences likely to crumble over time under sanctions onslaught — Reuters

Moreover, I think Reuters clarifies themselves their meaning 4 days later:

Russian economic collapse will be hard to avoid — Reuters, February 28th, 2022

However, if you don't accept "crumble" as a synonym for "collapse", the following paper was published on the 27th of February, which we could split hairs about being within 48 hours of the invasion, or second full day, or then "pretty close" anyways.

Putin’s War in Ukraine Could Mean the Collapse of Russia
Ukraine War Presages Russia’s Inevitable Collapse - — 1945

And if you take other synonyms of "collapse" then the scope is much wider:

Putin’s Blunder
Ukraine Will Make Russia Regret This War — Foreign Affairs, February 25th, 2022

There are all sorts of headlines along these lines, with "Mistake" or some variation.

However, the main message at the time was "Russia's Afghanistan", and we debated that a lot here in the early days of the war.

Could Ukraine be Putin’s Afghanistan? — Brookings institute, February 25th, 2022

However, the point of mentioning that people were literally predicting collapse on day 2 is to emphasise just how long this collapse narrative has been going on. If we consider the first month of the war:

Invasion of Ukraine could cause societal collapse in Russia | Expert explains Putin's miscalculation — CTV news, youtube

Russia's Economic Collapse: How Sanctions & War are Crushing Putin - — TLDR News, youtube

Russia Economy Heading For Collapse — Bloomberg Markets and Finance, youtube

Russia’s Looming Economic Collapse — The Atlantic

How close is Russia to collapse? — The Spectator

Russians Fleeing As Nation Faces Economic Collapse — Forbes

This is by no means a systemic search, and these talking points usually first emerge on television which is harder to search, but this idea Russia will collapse being predicted literally from day 2 and that narrative being sustained is well supported.

Of course the mechanisms of collapse change, from economics to morale to military, but that is simply necessary when the previous predictions of collapse don't come true; if you want to keep saying Russia will collapse then you need to continuously come up with new reasons.

Why not Crimea? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. — Isaac

The sad fact is that if Putin had ended with Crimea and not had started a war with Ukraine for Novorossiya, likely the World would have de facto moved on. But I guess the mass graves and torture chambers don't tell anything for you.

Yet there in Crimea too the totalitarian system of Putin's Russia is evident and the treatment of the Tatars is telling. The annexation has led to the detention and disappearance of dissenters, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the stifling of the media. The going on in Donetsk and Luhansk has been even worse.

That Putin's Russia has now more political prisoners than the Soviet Union had during later years is very telling, something you aren't picking up.

The mechanism changes, but the prediction of "collapse" was literally on day two of the invasion. — boethius

Mainly on the hope of the sanctions than the Ukraine military defeating them in open battle. The thinking was that Ukrainian could only fight successfully with an insurgency. The idea of Russia's "New Afghanistan" makes this point.

Quote:

Even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine earlier today, several commentators, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, argued convincingly that a Russian occupation of more of Ukraine, perhaps including Kyiv, would lead to an insurgency like that which the Soviet Union faced in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I believe the United States and NATO should help the Ukrainian resistance but we should understand the potential consequences, risks, and costs up front. Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine could well prove to be another geopolitical catastrophe for Russia but only if we help the Ukrainian resistance.

Notice the wording of "resistance". When you compare to what is happening now, it's not about an Afghan type resistance.

This is not an article that portrays the Ukrainian army to be a clear match on the battlefield for the Russian juggernaut.

Cracking on, sir, as ordered. — unenlightened

Are you seriously suggesting that a few rallies makes us basically the same as being run by Nazis. That some public meetings are much the same as the putsches, expulsions, beatings and legal disenfranchisement of the Jews?

As I said. Crack on.

AND THAT PROVES MY POINT. Thank you. :cheer: — ssu

How? You've not even addressed the question. Did Poland (or the Western regions of Russia) have a better time of the war because their governments didn't accept terms? Did the resistance of their governments to negotiations actually render any improvement at all in the welfare of their citizens? If not, then the best argument you can make is that surrender made no difference at all. Whether it saved lives from battles not fought is speculative, but whether it cost lives is not.

Yet there in Crimea too the totalitarian system of Putin's Russia is evident and the treatment of the Tatars is telling. The annexation has led to the detention and disappearance of dissenters, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the stifling of the media. The going on in Donetsk and Luhansk has been even worse. — ssu

The situation in Crimea was broadly similar to the situation in Ukrainian controlled Donbas.

That was the conclusion of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The UNHCR, The OSCE... If you disagree, you can take it up with them.

You've no argument that occupied Donbas will be worse than Donbas at war.

I know bolding doesn't seem to help your lamentably poor reading skills, but I tried.

What is the military value of taking some random airfield and ringing it with troop protection? — apokrisis

Denying its use to the enemy, securing it for future use, etc.

The issue is, airfields are incredibly important in war, and any occupying force would prioritize securing these, regardless of their future intentions. Not in the least part because the Russians during this time probably did not know exactly how the war would proceed.


Also, what would air assault troops be using an airfield for? Landing helicopters perhaps? Small, low-flying, the types of which could operate more closely to the frontline?

Sounds a lot more plausible to me.

Only “obvious” to you for some reason. — apokrisis

The fact you don't land cargo planes carrying battalions worth of troops under the enemy's AA umbrella should be obvious to anyone with a shred of sense.

Then why does every media report find the airbridge story to be plausible? — apokrisis

Because they're clueless or propagandists, or possibly both.

No one rules out the talk of establishing an early airbridge as “impossible” due to AA defences, just risky ... — apokrisis

Not risky - suicide.

Remember those big, slow-flying silhouettes in the air, the last time you drove past an airfield?

Now imagine you're a Ukrainian sitting on a mobile AAA platform that fires at ~4500 rpm like this one: 2K22 Tunguska, looking at 18-20 of these fifty-year-old unarmored piñatas, filled to the brim with troops and equipment.

So we continue to have the mystery of why secure a working airbridge ... — apokrisis

There is no mystery. They didn't intend to create an airbridge to fly in cargo planes. If any "airbridge" was intended, it could for example have been to supply (BY HELICOPTER) the air assault forces in follow-up operations.

... your persistent refusal to answer that question directly. — apokrisis

I'll chalk that up to your persistent refusal to read my posts then. :ok:

Mainly on the hope of the sanctions than the Ukraine military defeating them in open battle. The idea of Russia's "New Afghanistan" makes this point. — ssu

As I mention in my comment, the main narrative at the very start of the war was "Russia's Afghanistan", which links up to the collapse narrative if the parallel is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is linked to that. However, a longer term process.

The Russian collapse narrative and prediction as an imminent thing, was also already started as I think the citations I provide are sufficient to establish the fact.

Denying its use to the enemy, securing it for future use, etc. — Tzeentch

Another illogical reply. Just bomb it if you need to deny its use.

And what future use do you now have in mind? And long would a gang of paratroopers be expected to sit around the edge of a runway while a war was going on?

This was a feint, remember? Your story was there was no intended future use at all. Kyiv was a ruse to fix Ukrainian forces who might otherwise head for the Donbas.

So why would Russia fly crack paratroopers to the front line with the very important job of protecting a transport airfield so no one with bombs might decide to hurt it.

Your claims of military expertise are just so laughable.

Also, what would air assault troops be using an airfield for? Landing helicopters perhaps? — Tzeentch

Yes. Helicopters are famous for needing long runways designed for cargo planes. How did I miss that?

I'm saying that Nazi supporters are basically Nazis.

I'm saying that Nazi supporters are basically Nazis. — unenlightened

Yes.

A government of a country with Nazi supporters in it, though, is not, thankfully, a Nazi government.

Hence the very significant difference between Germany and England in the late 1930s.

Ukraine and Russia, however, have quite similar governments, particularly in the East where Ukraine were fighting the pro-Russian breakaway factions. Similar in levels of corruption, similar in human rights, similar in press freedoms, similar in approach to ethnic and national minorities within their territory.

Hence the notion that a comparison between the current situation in Ukraine and 1930s Europe is daft.

"pragmatic decision under uncertainty"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/745864

Pragmatic reasoning based on your ideologically-inspired goals, questionable as anybody else’s.

"As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. (The whole reasoning)"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746063

What is the well-being of the people? Don’t I show compassion for the well-being of “the people there” if I show my support for a Ukrainian feelings against Russian oppression, humanly perfectly understandable? Why should I “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there, to prove that I’m a compassionate outsider? Either solely or nothing: why are you talking in terms of out-out? How come there is no third way here? How do you think is capable to “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there? States as agents of a geopolitical power struggles as Mearsheimer sees them? Random anonymous armchair chatters on a website as you and me are?

“If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals. Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746064

But it can be a means to achieve “humanitarian goal” if by “humanitarian goal” you are referring to human rights as we, in western democracies, understand them and sovereignty can be a pre-condition for the implementation of state apparatuses supporting human rights.

Pragmatic reasoning based on your ideologically-inspired goals, questionable as anybody else’s. — neomac

Yes, that's right.

What is the well-being of the people? — neomac

That's up to us to decide. Personally I think the notion of human rights is a good starting point.

Don’t I show compassion for the well-being of “the people there” if I show my support for a Ukrainian feelings against Russian oppression — neomac

Not in isolation, no. The Russians could be liberators come to free the people from tyrannical rule, they'd still be the invaders. You have to have some clear notion of the relative harms to pick sides, it's not sufficient just to say one side is being invaded. We've no good reason to care about the outcome of that unless the invaders are significantly worse than the invaded. We do have good reason to care about the process though.

Why should I “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there, to prove that I’m a compassionate outsider? — neomac

You are free to have whatever concerns you wish. I'm arguing about the moral authority of our governments.

How do you think is capable to “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there? — neomac

I'm not struggling with that, personally, so you'll have to explain a bit more about the difficulties you're having.

it can be a means to achieve “humanitarian goal” if by “humanitarian goal” you are referring to human rights as we, in western democracies, understand them and sovereignty can be a pre-condition for the implementation of state apparatuses supporting human rights. — neomac

How? I don't see the mechanism. Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty.

Just bomb it if you need to deny its use. — apokrisis

As if bombing things is the only way to deny the enemy. :brow:

Besides, we've already established that airfields are important strategic targets. Why bomb things you may need later? We're talking literally the first day of the invasion here - no one knew what course the war would take.

Your story was there was no intended future use at all. — apokrisis

Incorrect. I had no story at all.

I challenged your story that the Russian attempt to secure an airfield somehow proved the Russian intentions towards Kiev - something for which you haven't provided a shred of evidence.

You attempted to support that position by claiming they were going to airlift BTG's by plane, which is absurd.

That's what I've argued.

Kyiv was a ruse to fix Ukrainian forces who might otherwise head for the Donbas. — apokrisis

And how does such a task exclude the taking of airfields?

I've also mentioned that the drive on Kiev had a different primary purpose, and that it's secondary purpose may have been a feint.

So why would Russia fly crack paratroopers to the front line with the very important job of protecting a transport airfield so no one with bombs might decide to hurt it. — apokrisis

And how do you suppose paratroopers would stop bombs from being dropped on the airfield?


Also, why don't you answer some of the dozens of questions I have asked you and you have never answered?

How were you going to take out all of those MANPADS, IR AA and mobile AAA batteries with GPS-guided cruise missiles again?

Your claims of military expertise are just so laughable. — apokrisis

Weren't you about to land 20 cargo planes in the crosshairs of enemy AA claiming they had "flares and electronic countermeasures" supposedly showing they had "some chance of landing"?

I'm sure the optically guided AAA batteries would have enjoyed the fireworks. :rofl:

I challenged your story that the Russian attempt to secure an airfield somehow proved the Russian intentions towards Kiev - something for which you haven't provided a shred of evidence. — Tzeentch

You are so funny. Making shit up off the top of your head. Read and weep….

At around 6:00 PM on February 24th, 2022, head of Bellingcat (a widely respected international group of investigative journalists) Christo Grozev reported that 18 Russian Il-76 military transport planes were flying from Pskov to Kyiv. However, it soon became apparent that events were not unfolding according to the scenario established by the Russians. The first paratroopers did not manage to accomplish their objective and the Ils changed their course to the Belarusian city of Gomel. Later, after establishing control over the airfield, the Russians tried to repair the runway. However, this also proved to be impossible due to the constant fighting, which prevented the Russians from implementing their plan logistically. Instead of landing on the threshold of Kyiv, several thousand Russian paratroopers were forced to advance on the Ukrainian capital on their own.

Russian propaganda interprets the events in a profoundly different way. As early as the afternoon of February 25th, 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the Antonov airport had been seized the day before after a successful operation involving 200 helicopters, the suppression of all Ukrainian air defense systems and the complete isolation of the landing area from the air. According to the Russian version of events, 200 paratroopers allegedly landed, fought a successful battle, captured the airfield and the military base, repelled all Ukrainian counterattacks, facilitated the landing of Russia’s main forces and defended the facility without losing a single soldier. At the same time, 200 “Ukrainian nationalists” were purportedly eliminated during the operation.

The scale of the attack, particularly in relation to the number of helicopters, is wildly overstated and not supported by any existing evidence. Russian propaganda tried to cover up the failure of the landing by describing an attack on an absurd scale. At that time, Russian armor convoys had entered Hostomel. After connecting the remnants of the first Russian landing group with the rest of the airborne forces and reinforcements supplied by additional army units, the airport came under the control of the Russian army.

The fixation of Russian propagandists on the number 200 has a history of its own that goes back as far as the Incident at the Pristina airport in June 1999, when 200 Russian airborne troops seized the international airport of Pristina (the capital of the Republic of Kosovo). The incident was also considered to be a “pre-emptive" operation that took place surrounded by enemy forces, namely actual NATO troops, not imagined ones. Russia assigned an epochal historical significance to the incident, calling it "the beginning of the transition to an independent foreign policy."

The victory in Hostomel was supposed to be a triumph of the Russian military and constitute a new milestone in Russian geopolitics. These goals were not achieved, but Russia is not used to departing from a story that it has already announced as factual. Therefore, the myth engineering shifted its focus to an unequal battle. Stories about the "200 Spartans" and the "heroes of Hostomel" began to circulate in Russian social networks, including a poem that was written in their honor which later would later become a song.

In mid-July 2022, Russia published a video with footage of both the landing in Mozyr, Belarus and the 45th Separate Guards Special Forces Brigade (based in Kubinka, near Moscow) disembarking at the Antonov airport. The military personnel of this airborne unit did actually occupy Hostomel, but they most likely entered the village after crossing into Ukraine from Belarus after February 24th, 2022 along with the armored convoys. Certain Russian brigades were also swapped out in order to further serve Russian propaganda narratives. Instead of the decimated 31st Brigade, whose participation in the assault has been confirmed by Ukrainian and foreign sources, Russian media widely glorified the 45th Brigade, which did not suffer devastating losses. Despite their best efforts, Russian propaganda outlets could not change the factual reality of the events - Russia had lost the battle, despite its own superiority in manpower and equipment.

The architect of the military operation to storm the Antonov airport remains unknown. However, the course of the actual battle, the results of the battle and Russia’s attempts to rewrite history are evidence to the fact that the authors did not give adequate consideration to the impending assault. On February 27th, 2022, the Ukrainian Security Service released documents recovered from soldiers of the Russian National Guard that had been killed near Hostomel, including call signs, planned maneuvers, conventional designations, ciphers, and more. In addition to the general utility these documents supplied to the Ukrainian special services, the information provides further supporting evidence for the idea of a planned Russian blitzkrieg. Russian units tasked with dispersing Ukrainian rallies and protests were just behind the initial invasion forces leading the assault into Ukraine, as Russian strategists did not anticipate they would encounter serious resistance.

https://rusaggression.gov.ua/en/russian-occupiers-fail-to-secure-their-foothold-in-the-attack-on-kyiv-eb11ccc699f8e6de615c66aafee4b5bb.html

Not in isolation, no. The Russians could be liberators come to free the people from tyrannical rule, they'd still be the invaders. You have to have some clear notion of the relative harms to pick sides, it's not sufficient just to say one side is being invaded. — Isaac

I disagree. I see compassion as a supportive feeling we have for other people’s suffering, it doesn’t presuppose an accurate or wider/est calculation of relative harms.

I'm not struggling with that, personally, so you'll have to explain a bit more about the difficulties you're having. — “Isaac

You are not proving to be “solely” concerned of the well being of the people there, by engaging in anonymous armchair chattering about “people there” on a website. I don’t even think it’s a reasonable expectation since we are human being too physically, socially, intellectually and morally limited to be unconditionally determined by such a goal. So I deeply doubt that it make even sense to prescribe we should “solely” be concerned of the well being of the people there. And states according to a realist view that you seem to share with Mearsheimer don’t care about people’s feelings or moral, they are self-preserving geopolitical agents in competition for power. So your prescriptions about compassion sound cheap (because from an armchair) wishful (because unrealistic from an individual and collective p.o.v) thinking.

How? I don't see the mechanism. Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty. — Isaac

I didn't equate representation and sovereignty anywhere. I was talking about pre-condition for the implementation of state institutions that support human rights. State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory.

You are so funny. Making shit up off the top of your head. Read and weep…. — apokrisis

You believe this is evidence?

Apparently you do not understand what constitutes evidence. But since I would not wish to wrongfully dismiss your story, I did an actual search for the evidence myself. (Next time, be a good lad and don't make me do work that you should be doing to support your arguments)

The 18 IL-76 story seems to be based on a Twitter message. This Twitter message. In which a journalist supposedly cites (no actual citation is produced) UKRAINIAN government sources.

No evidence is produced here. Just a Twitter message full of completely inverifiable claims, made by potentially highly biased sources.


Also, where is that explanation of cruise missile SEAD strikes?

Playing devil's advocate:
- Expansion of NATO (Sweden and Finland) possibly Ukraine
- End of economic cooperation between Russia-Germany (destruction of North stream)
- Militarization of Europe
- Western Russophobia & military humiliation of Russia
- Besides boosting American companies selling weapons and shale gas, of course.

Now Biden is ready for peace and the "armageddon" argument comes in handy.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/07/demands-peace-talks-intensify-biden-says-putin-nuclear-threats-risk-armageddon

Playing devil's advocate: — neomac

A healthy exercise! for those of us who appreciate the hellscape we live in, anyhow.

- Expansion of NATO (Sweden and Finland) possibly Ukraine — neomac

Sweden has essentially zero military significance.

Finland in NATO doesn't really change anything as there's extreme low probability that Finland would house NATO nuclear missiles or be a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia, which is also unlikely to happen anyways.

The only military scenario where Finland in NATO is relevant is if Russia planned on invading either Finland or then NATO countries, which again is very low probability.

- End of economic cooperation between Russia-Germany (destruction of North stream) — neomac

This is arguably much worse for Germany and the EU and NATO than it is for Russia and its friends, in particular China.

So what end of economic cooperation between Russia and German harms or benefits, very much depends on your point of view.

- Militarization of Europe — neomac

Again, if there's not really a future scenario where Russia and NATO do battle in conventional means, then militarisation of Europe means nothing but wasted funds (that may lead to further European economic troubles and breakup).

- Western Russophobia & military humiliation of Russia — neomac

The Russophobia seemed at fever pitch before the war, with the whole Russia-gate thing.

As for military humiliation, the war is not over.

The Russian strategy, seems to me, is to wait until winter and see how long and how much European citizens are willing to suffer in order to support indefinite war. As Bill Gates has recently drawn attention to, the difference between a mild and severe winter is a factor of three in terms of gas requirements.

- Besides boosting American companies selling weapons and shale gas, of course. — neomac

Higher energy prices cause severe economic harms to Europe and also harm the US economy, contributing to both economic problems and domestic political instability.

The West is promising that they are "handling it," but that remains to be seen.

And, again, the extent to which there is real pain and disruption doesn't change the immense competitive advantage to the rest of the world that hasn't sanctioned Russian energy, in particular China and India.

The idea that US energy companies profiting from a war ... is somehow good for the US / NATO and bad for Russia in any geopolitical sense is foolish. It's basically making the argument that the war is good for war profiteering.

Now Biden is ready for peace and the "armageddon" argument comes in handy. — neomac

Debatable if Biden is now ready for peace. He certainly doesn't say anything along those lines.

Rather, the previous idea of trying to deter Russia's use of a nuclear weapon with a non-nuclear retaliation obviously makes no sense and is not a deterrent, so they have simply made the logical step of now threatening nuclear retaliation.

In realpolitik terms obviously the US would not retaliate against Russia with a nuclear weapon, it's simply impossible to justify.

The mention of armageddon could be just empty talk, or then it could be simply preparing to deescalate the situation. The US administration has gotten what it wants from the conflict (ending cooperation between Russia and Germany, militarisation of Europe, boosting energy profits, is very doubtful good things for NATO as a whole, but it is certainly good for Biden's donors), so "averting nuclear war" is obviously a good rational to end the conflict in one way or another if it's now simply becoming a headache to deal with.

The mention of armageddon could be just empty talk, or then it could be simply preparing to deescalate the situation. The US administration has gotten what it wants from the conflict (ending cooperation between Russia and Germany, militarisation of Europe, boosting energy profits, is very doubtful good things for NATO as a whole, but it is certainly good for Biden's donors), so "averting nuclear war" is obviously a good rational to end the conflict in one way or another if it's now simply becoming a headache to deal with. — boethius

Yes that was the point I was making.

Sweden has essentially zero military significance.
Finland in NATO doesn't really change anything as there's extreme low probability that Finland would house NATO nuclear missiles or be a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia, which is also unlikely to happen anyways.
The only military scenario where Finland in NATO is relevant is if Russia planned on invading either Finland or then NATO countries, which again is very low probability. — boethius

NATO can be repurposed also defend the West from the Rest. And if NATO expansion in Sweden or Finland is not a problem, neither should have been NATO expanding in Ukraine.

As for military humiliation, the war is not over. — boethius

It doesn't need to be over to assess how poorly Russian are military performing. Even they themselves are complaining about it in their national TV.

And, again, the extent to which there is real pain and disruption doesn't change the immense competitive advantage to the rest of the world that hasn't sanctioned Russian energy, in particular China and India. — boethius

Well Indian, Chinese, Russian, and anti-Capitalist should be happy then. The US and the Western American-led oppression of the rest of the World is on a path of self-destruction. That's why they should absolutely continue to support Ukraine to fight Russia.

Yes that was the point I was making. — neomac

Good to see we agree here.

NATO can be repurposed also defend the West from the Rest. And if NATO expansion in Sweden or Finland is not a problem, neither should have been NATO expanding in Ukraine. — neomac

There is a big difference.

First, there is basic political stability. No one would entertain the notion that some faction of the Finnish military or intelligence would "cause trouble" and actively try to start a war between Russia and NATO. Even putting aside recent history, Finland is stable and predictable whereas Ukraine is not, so having a 1000 km border with an unstable country that is apart of NATO is a recipe for trouble making.

However, there is also another big military difference in that Finland does not host any Russian naval bases, whereas Ukraine hosted one of Russia's most important ports.

There is a lot of pretty common sense reasons Russia would view Ukraine in NATO as a major threat to its security, which has no parallel with Finland. Of course, "never say never" but I seriously doubt anyone in Russia, Finland or the whole NATO seriously believes in any conflict between Finland and Russia, with or without Finland in NATO.

It doesn't need to be over to assess how poorly Russian are military performing. Even they themselves are complaining about it in their national TV. — neomac

For now. Things can change. Now, if you say this is one negative for now, then we agree.

However, there are also negatives on the Ukrainian side. The "humiliation" only exists insofar as Ukraine can sustain military gains on the battle field.

Although I would never exclude some brilliant deceptive operation, it seems pretty unanimous that Ukraine is suffering heavy losses in these offensives. If that is simply unsustainable then the offensives will burn themselves out and Russia will reverse the tide.

Also, from my observations over the years, Putin, the Kremlin and the Russian military run a very different information game (call it propaganda or public relations -- same word to me), since they know that they can't actually stop the West's propaganda (maybe learned something from Soviet times) or maybe they just have a flare for the dramatic, but whatever the reason, they often let negative speculation run wild and then simply accomplish the task or present their case much later. For example, a lot of what we've witnessed in the information battle in this war happened nearly identically in Russia's intervention in the Syrian war.

For example, weeks and weeks of ATGM's taking out Russian tanks almost verbatim reproduction in Ukraine, the West crying from roof tops of Russian incompetence, can't even take an airfield, can't even take Aleppo ... or then only with siege tactics etc. Putin, Kremlin and the Russian military did not respond to all this "embarrassment" (running to show many tanks survived, many were decoys, and I expect many were staged since video proof was needed for funding and propaganda of these groups).

So, if Russia is confident that Ukraine cannot sustain this offensive, then the greater the despair the greater the catharsis and euphoria when the tide is reversed. And such an observation is not "copium" but psychology 101 and hinges on the "if" statement. If Ukrainian gains are sustainable then the greater the despair the greater pressure to start use tactical nuclear weapons or justify some other policy shift.

Point being, simply because the US brings out general after general to say "things are fine" right up until the day "allies" are falling of US cargo planes to their death, does not mean we should expect the same from the Kremlin.

Whether by design or just his personality, Putin's way of dealing with repetitive propaganda from the West (which Russian's aren't exposed to same as us) is long, detailed and fairly exhaustive presentation of his point of view and asking any question journalists ask. I am happy to believe it is a staged performance, but it is good communication none-the-less as the West's propaganda machine doesn't get into these nuances or rebutting anything Putin says, so leaves Putin with the "last word" so to speak (only in Russia).

Globally, Russia is officially China's "friend", and whatever meaning is in that, China isn't trash talking Russian internally. Indian, Africa, and South American media has been fairly Russian sympathetic, and I definitely get a a sort of "pay back" for colonialism vibe from such sources.

Most importantly, even the Western media is forced at some point to recognise Russia is "winning" if they clearly are. This was what was happening before these offensives. Ukraine was "resisting" heroically around Kiev and the withdraw from the North was a huge victory for Ukraine and Embarrassment for Russia, war crimes rinse repeat, but after some time even the Western media had to recognise that Russia was winning, especially after Ukraine retreat from major centres like Donetsk.

Point is, embarrassment based on how things appear to be or then what Western media is saying now, doesn't have any long lasting value if thing turn out differently.

Indeed, embarrassing can actually backfires as it removes the whole "if Ukraine falls, Poland and the Baltics are next!" and "fight them there so we don't fight them here" overall justification, without which it can be hard to sustain support for the war within NATO for long. If the war has proven Russia is not a threat to NATO, then there is no actual NATO based reason (being a defensive organisation) to supply arms to Ukraine, and some members may start to take the point of view this is a regional border conflict that doesn't concern them seeing as it is evident Russia cannot take all of Ukraine, much less all of Easter Europe.

Well Indian, Chinese, Russian, and anti-Capitalist should be happy then. The US and the Western American-led oppression of the rest of the World is on a path of self-destruction. That's why they should absolutely continue to support Ukraine to fight Russia. — neomac

This is why I say it's a "call me in 300 years" thing. How history will ultimately view this war is anyone's guess.

All I know for certain about how history ultimately cares about things, is rarely as much as the people living it at the time, wars in particular.

For myself, I empathise with the people suffering now and I would rather see people harmed in their pride by the trenchant words of compromise than be harmed in their bodies and souls.

In particular the children of Ukraine who I do not believe will grow up to care about the war, but why global society (most of all us Westerners) allowed environmental catastrophe to unfold.

The argument that this war is finally the "kick in the arse" Europe needed to transition to renewables all along, is not a good argument, it simply establishes we have been led by traitors to European citizens and all of humanity and all life all this time.

And if it was a good argument, then if Putin's actions makes such good things to happen, that would simply make Putin a good man.

And if NATO expansion in Sweden or Finland is not a problem, neither should have been NATO expanding in Ukraine. — neomac

Well, NATO expanding into Sweden and Finland probably is a problem for the Russians. The only way they can interpret it is as a decidedly anti-Russian move. But they weren't in any position to object.

Further, the difference between Sweden, Finland and Ukraine should be obvious. Sweden and Finland have no strategic relevance to Russia at all, while Ukraine is the most important region for Russia outside of Russia proper.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move. Why would they accept US vassalage when the Russians aren't interested in Finland or Sweden at all?

Europe now sees what it means to let the United States dictate their foreign military policy. Russia's invasion is a direct response to US meddling on Europe's doorstep. The US is now exchanging nuclear rhetoric with Russia, with Europe as its pawns. What a time to be part of NATO.

I see compassion as a supportive feeling we have for other people’s suffering — neomac

Sure but we're talking about objectives, not suffering. It's the Ukrainian objective you're expressing support for, not merely empathising with their suffering. If I see a person with a sharp object in their leg I might be moved to tears at the thought of their pain, it has no bearing at all on my response if they say "I'm going to take it out", I'd still be strongly opposed to the idea for their own welfare (my understanding of first aid being that one is supposed to leave embedded objects where they are until the experts get to it). My sympathy with their plight has no bearing on my opinion of what course of action is most likely to get them out of it.

You are not proving to be “solely” concerned of the well being of the people there, by engaging in anonymous armchair chattering about “people there” on a website. — neomac

The intention is not to 'prove' it.

states according to a realist view that you seem to share with Mearsheimer don’t care about people’s feelings or moral, they are self-preserving geopolitical agents in competition for power. — neomac

I don't agree with Mearsheimer on that (assuming that's what he thinks). States ought to be concerned with the welfare of all humans the interact with, as should anyone. I think nationalism is a cancer on human societies.

I was talking about pre-condition for the implementation of state institutions that support human rights. State institutions, as I understand them, presuppose authoritative and coercive ruling over a territory. — neomac

Yes. But it doesn't matter which. No-one is contemplating leaving Donbas as no-man's land.

The situation in Crimea was broadly similar to the situation in Ukrainian controlled Donbas.

That was the conclusion of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The UNHCR, The OSCE... If you disagree, you can take it up with them. — Isaac

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You really think people were disappearing prior to the Russian invasion? Why don't just refer to that. What Amnesty International criticized Ukraine was about police using excessive force and how they handled the Euromaidan protestors, during the student protests. But I didn't know that dissenters were disappearing in Crimea / Donbas prior to the war.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move. Why would they accept US vassalage when the Russians aren't interested in Finland or Sweden at all? — Tzeentch

But is interested in Finland and Sweden. You are just making things up. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

But when a person here genuinely thinks that it would have saved lives for UK to surrender to Nazi Germany, repeat SURRENDER, not just to try staying out of the conflict and have diplomatic relations Germany, than to fight the war until victory was obtained. I think I should stop responding to such nonsense.

The Russian collapse narrative and prediction as an imminent thing, was also already started as I think the citations I provide are sufficient to establish the fact. — boethius

I think there was far more belief in the strength of the sanctions. But I guess someone than predicted the dire situation that Russia would be now six months ago was then simply correct.

For Russia this war is going as well as the Russo-Japanese war. (Which btw went on for over 1 year and 6 months)

My sympathy with their plight has no bearing on my opinion of what course of action is most likely to get them out of it. — Isaac

This is crucial to understand and it is very easy to gloss over in favor of well-meant, but often ill-advised action.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You really think people were disappearing prior to the Russian invasion? Why don't just refer to that. — ssu

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/4455/2016/en/

Both the Ukrainian government authorities and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine have held civilians in prolonged, arbitrary detention, without any contact with the outside world, including with their lawyers or families. In some cases, the detentions constituted enforced disappearances

The fact that you don't know this speak volumes about your biases.

At least when it comes to your own country, the UK, they (the British Army) have had the decency to call afterwards the events in Northern Ireland an insurgency (if during the time it was referred to "The Troubles"). But the British at least upheld the common law and what the UK stands for" — ssu

Incorrect.

"Operation Demetrius was a British Army operation in Northern Ireland on 9–10 August 1971, during the Troubles. It involved the mass arrest and internment (imprisonment without trial) of people suspected of being involved with the Irish Republican Army (IRA),"

"The policy of internment lasted until December 1975 and during that time 1,981 people were interned;
...
"The interrogation techniques used on some of the internees were described by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1976 as torture"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

The latter ruling was later controversially revised, but this was no common-law holiday camp.